CHAPTER 4

The King and His People

Vicarios de Dios Son los Reyes

Acknowledging that kingship is divinely ordained, Alfonso X believed that as God’s temporal representative on earth, he was responsible for governing the people confided to his care so they might live in peace and justice. Those ideas, set forth in the Espéculo, were greatly expanded in the Second Partida, which has been called the most original of the Partidas.1 In persuasive and didactic language, the text, citing an array of “ancient sages and saints,” explains the essential relationship of king and people. Frequent reminders that certain actions or inactions are treasonable emphasize the book’s serious legal intent. While the king’s men wrote the text, its very personal nature suggests that he took a close interest in it and that it reflects his thinking.

Royal Authority

An extensive speculum regum or mirror for kings expounds the nature, functions, responsibilities, and obligations of kingship.² The authors utilized Aristotle’s Politics and the Pseudo-Aristotelian Secreto de los secretos and the Poridat de las poridades, texts translated from Arabic and purporting to be the philosopher’s instructions to his pupil Alexander the Great.³ The Bocados de oro, another translation from Arabic, was also cited.⁴ Georges Martin suggested that the royal jurists initiated a new political genre, the neo-Aristotelian De regimine principum, and may have influenced Thomas Aquinas who penned his treatise on kingship around 1265.5

In the Fuero real (1, 5, 4), and in charters of 1255, Alfonso X affirmed “that the temporal and spiritual powers that both come from God ought to be in accord with one another.”⁶ In the twelfth century the two powers were identified with the two swords presented to Jesus at Gethsemane (Lk 22:38; Mt 26:51–52; Jn 18:11).⁷ The spiritual sword “uproots hidden evils and the temporal those that are manifest.” Discord between them was contrary to God’s commandment and undermined both faith and justice, so that the land could not long remain in “good estate or in peace” (SP 2, pr.).⁸

As Holy Roman Emperor-elect,⁹ Alfonso X, like other kings and emperors, was endowed by God with imperium, “a great dignity, nobler and more honored” than any other temporal office (SP 2, 1, 1).¹⁰ That statement acknowledged a fundamental principle of Christian political theory, namely, that all power comes from God (Rom 13:1). However, the lex regia cited by the Roman jurist Ulpian (D 1, 4, 1) declared that the Roman people transmitted that power to the emperor:

Quod placuit principi legis habet vigorem, utpote cum lege regia, quae de imperio ejus lata est, populus ei et in eum omne suum imperium et potestatem conferat.

[What pleases the prince has the force of law because, by the lex regia that was enacted concerning his authority, the people conferred on him and in him all their authority and power.]¹¹

The royal jurists emphasized that the emperor, as God’s vicar in the empire, “is not obliged to obey anyone, except the pope in spiritual matters.”¹² Commenting on the divided imperial election of 1257, they paraphrased Lucan’s remark that power ought not to be shared,¹³ and argued that there should only be one emperor. Only the emperor could exercise de jure certain powers. He could make new laws, alter and amend old ones for the common good, abolish harmful customs, and sit in judgment and impose punishment. He could levy tolls, authorize fairs, coin money, delimit provinces and towns, make war and peace, resolve disputes, appoint provincial governors and judges, and collect provisions, tributes, and taxes. He could not arbitrarily dispossess anyone, but if he seized property for the common good, he had to compensate the owner. In order to govern effectively, he should gain the affection of his generals and territorial governors, seek the counsel of wise, intelligent, and loyal men, prepare for war by gathering sufficient treasure and consulting military experts, and administer justice and show mercy. He enjoyed the greatest power when he loved his people and was loved by them, but he was warned that he would lose their love and his ability to govern if he acted unjustly or treated them harshly (SP 2, 1, 1–4). Surely when those words were written, Alfonso X had no thought that they would come back later to haunt him. Ironically, by abusing his power and failing to guarantee due process of law, he lost the love of his people who rejected him.

Everything said of the emperor applied also to the king:

Vicarios de Dios son los Reyes, cada uno en su reyno, puestos sobre las gentes para mantener las en justicia e en verdad, quanto en lo temporal, bien assi como el Emperador en su imperio…. El Rey es puesto en la tierra en lugar de Dios para conplir la justicia e dar a cada uno su derecho.

[Kings are vicars of God, each in his own kingdom, placed over the people to maintain them in justice and truth in temporal affairs, just as the emperor is in his empire…. The king is placed on earth in the place of God to do justice and to render to each one his due.] (SP 2, 1, 5)14

The idea of the king as God’s vicar can be traced to Paul’s assertion that all power comes from God and that the ruler is God’s minister to punish the wicked (Rom 13:1–10).¹⁵ The royal jurists wrote that by standing in God’s place on earth, the king, the “heart and soul of the people,” was charged with doing justice so the people might live in peace and love. Just as the soul animates the body, so justice giving life to the people resides in the king. Similarly, as the heart unifies the members of the body, the people receive God’s gift of being made one through the king, “the head of his kingdom.” He is the bond uniting them; a wall protecting them; the sustainer of lesser folk, lest they perish; the suppressor of the mighty, lest they become proud; the animator of the downtrodden, lest they lose heart; and a curb on evildoers. As the feelings that stir the body originate in the head, so too the people should be guided by his commands. Because “he is the soul and head” of the kingdom “and they are the members,” they should be in accord with him (E 2, 1, 1; SP 2, 1, 5).

In pagan times, according to Aristotle’s Politics (bk. 3, chap. 14),¹⁶ the king was not only a military commander and judge, but also lord over spiritual affairs. In the Christian dispensation, he took his title from God, the “king of kings,” who maintained him on earth to do justice.¹⁷ He might also be compared to a rule or ruler because he straightens crooked ways and corrects errors. As human beings inevitably disagree, one person was needed by whose wisdom they might live in justice and harmony. Just as the soul gives life to the body, and the head guides it, so the king gives the people health, wisdom, knowledge, and, through his laws, the facility to discern right and wrong, and the desire to do good and shun evil (E 2, 1, 2–5; SP 2, 1, 6–7).

These passages accentuate several ideas common to medieval political thought. First, the king, as God’s temporal representative on earth, is responsible for administering justice and according to each person his due. Secondly, the body politic with its diverse members is compared to the human body whose various parts perform functions essential to the well-being of the whole. As the soul gives life to the human body and the head directs its activities, so the king unifies and commands the body politic.18

Throughout this discussion, the royal jurists stressed that kings possessed the same authority in their realms as the emperor had in his empire (SP 2, 1, 5). That reflected the principle “rex in regno suo imperator est” (the king is emperor in his own kingdom)—cited by medieval lawyers to affirm royal sovereignty and to attribute to the king the powers assigned to the emperor in Justinian’s Code.¹⁹ Quoting Innocent III’s statement “cum rex non recognoscit superiorem in temporalibus” (as the king does not recognize a superior in temporal matters), the legists also asserted the king’s independence of the Holy Roman Emperor.²⁰

Repudiating any suggestion that Spain was ever subject to the empire, the canonist Vincentius Hispanus (d. 1248) remarked that Charlemagne never dominated the Iberian Peninsula. He added that the Spaniards were creating their own empire and had their own laws and had no need of imperial laws.²¹ Lucas of Túy also emphasized that Spain had her own laws and that her kings “are not subject to any temporal empire.” Infante Sancho’s tutor, Juan Gil de Zamora, repeated that language.²² As a hereditary monarch, Alfonso X claimed to have greater powers than an elected emperor, including the right to take from the kingdom whatever was necessary for the common good (SP 2, 1, 8).²³

He also rejected any temporal subordination to the papacy or the empire by saying: “por la merçed de Dios non auemos mayor ssobre nos en el tenporal” (by the grace of God we do not have anyone greater than us in temporal affairs) (E 1, 1, 14).²⁴ His jurists affirmed that principle when they disallowed an appeal from a judgment rendered by a king or emperor because “ellos non han mayorales sobre si quanto es en las cosas temporales” (they have no superiors over themselves with respect to temporal matters) (SP 3, 23, 17). His predecessors, imitating the practice of the Roman emperors, often described their authority as maiestas, but that term appears only infrequently in Alfonsine texts. Nevertheless, the words mayor or mayoral, derived from the abstract noun mayoría, conveyed the same idea of sovereign authority.²⁵

Royal sovereignty was usually described as señorío, a word originally meaning lordship or dominion.²⁶ Sometimes señorío del regno was used.²⁷ In 1283 and 1284 Alfonso X referred to his “sennorío mayor de Castella e de León” and his “sennorío de España.”28 Señorío was “the supreme power that emperors and kings have to punish evildoers and to render to each one his due” (SP 3, 28, 1). At the king’s accession, the people should swear to preserve the unity of his señorio (E 2, 16, 2–3; SP 2, 13, 20). Señorío was one, because “according to nature, [it] does not want a companion” (SP 2, 1, 1). Here Lucan’s potestas was translated as señorío.²⁹ Certain rights pertaining to the señorío del rey should never be alienated: the right to coin money (including moneda forera, a tribute paid in return for his pledge not to alter the coinage); the administration of justice; the right to make war and peace; fonsadera, a tribute paid in lieu of military service; and hospitality (yantar).³⁰ An affair might touch “the person of the king or his señorío” or be “against the king or against his señorío” (E 2, 7, 3; 5, 12, 4; FR 2, 1, 3; 2, 8, 8; 2, 12, 2; 2, 13, 4; 3, 9, 2).

The jurist Jacobo de las leyes linked several key terms when he advised Alfonso Fernández, the king’s illegitimate son, “to guard your dignity and your señorío which is called in Latin office or jurisdiction” (FD pr.). Señorío was an officium, a dignitas, or public duty conferring on the incumbent jurisdiction, namely, the right to declare the law. The imperium or authority given to kings and emperors by God was a great dignity (SP 2, 1, 1). According to Ernst Kantorowicz, dignity “referred chiefly to the singularity of the royal office, to the sovereignty vested in the king by the people and resting individually in the king alone.”³¹ By virtue of his office, the king, no matter his personal qualities, should be treated with honor and respect. As he held God’s place on earth and, like Jesus, bore the royal title, his duty was to do good to his people and guard them from evil. They, in turn, should honor him, his family, and his officials (E 2, 1, 5).

True kings gained sovereignty through inheritance by the deceased monarch’s eldest son or nearest relative, by the consent of the people when there was no clear heir, by marriage to a royal heiress, or by papal or imperial concession. However they came to power, kings were obliged to foster the common good. They ought to love and honor people of every station, enjoy the company of learned and intelligent persons, promote love and concord, do justice by giving to each one his due, and confide in their own people rather than in foreigners (SP 2, 1, 9).

The Character of a King

A good king, according to the royal jurists, ought to be a man of high character and excellent personal qualities. In order to govern intelligently, he ought to know, love, and fear God, whose place he occupies on earth. Protecting the people commended to him by God, he should rule with compassion and assure “each one of justice and right.” He must uphold the faith, suppress its enemies, and protect churches and ecclesiastics. If the king governs in this manner, God will prompt his people to know, love, and fear him. A good king will be rewarded in paradise, but a wicked one will be punished severely. As the desire for riches is “the root of all evils” (1 Tm 6:10), he ought to use his fortune for good (SP 2, 2, 1–4; 2, 3, 1–5).

In reasonable and temperate tones, he should articulate his words clearly so as not to be misunderstood. Always adhering to the truth, he should never deliberately tell a lie, for if he is given to lying, his people will not believe him when he speaks the truth. As his words will betray his intellectual shortcomings, he ought to avoid foolish talk, never boast, never praise others beyond their merits, never blaspheme, or defame an innocent person (SP 2, 4, 1–5).

Moderation should guide his personal habits. Eating and drinking for his good health, he should guard against excess. Indeed, the Cortes of Valladolid in 1258 urged him to eat “as he thinks best for his body,” but as a money-saving measure, the daily expenditure for food for the king and queen (not counting foreign guests) should be no more than 150 maravedís. The cost of meals for the royal household should be more modest than it was (arts. 1, 3). Overindulgence in wine might cause him to offend God, reveal secrets, and make faulty judgments; it could also lead to disease and death. The admonition not to engage in promiscuous sexual conduct and beget illegitimate children, thereby dishonoring himself and his sovereignty, is quite ironic as Alfonso X had at least four bastards by several women. So that men might recognize him, he should carry himself well and dress stylishly in silk clothing. During great feasts and during the Cortes, he should wear a golden crown set with precious stones (SP 2, 5, 1–5). The Cortes of Valladolid in 1258 affirmed that he should dress as he thought proper and have as many outfits as he wished (art. 2).

By developing good habits and exhibiting the manners of a well-bred man, the king would exemplify an honorable life. The virtues of faith, hope, and charity would enable him to win the love of God and man, while prudence, temperance, fortitude, and justice would help him to live well and justly. In his daily life he should strive to be patient and equable and never yield to anger or hatred. He must maintain a calm demeanor until anger passes, for only then will he be able to perceive the truth and act fairly. Provoked by anger, he might inflict unjust punishment, and so incur the wrath of God and of the people. Although he should extend good will to men of good will, he should hate enemies of the faith and those guilty of treason, forgery, and other great crimes. As it was his duty to proceed justly, he ought not to act hastily, attempt to do something inappropriate, or desire something that could not occur, such as the practice of alchemy. As Solomon said, “a just king and a lover of justice governs his land uprightly, but the one who is overly covetous destroys it.”32 Therefore the king should not be greedy or make unjust and unreasonable demands (SP 2, 5, 6–15).

Reflecting on the proverb “the one who is sparing toward himself and generous to his people is just,”³³ Juan Gil de Zamora extolled the virtue of largesse, but warned that the ruler who filled his own pockets while emptying those of his people destroyed his kingdom. Ancient princes ruled, not for money, but rather glory and the utility and protection of the republic. Avarice causes kings to lie and break off friendships and alliances and ultimately to lose their kingdoms. God expected kings to counsel, assist, and defend their people, not to oppress the poor, widows, orphans, and children with unaccustomed exactions. Aristotle reportedly counseled Alexander: “whoever advises you to extort money from your people is advising them to hate you, and is advising your destruction.” Juan Gil concluded with a blessing for the king who lived temperately. “For the strong kings of Spain temperance served as a brake on greed.”³⁴ Those words of caution were likely inspired by Juan Gil’s awareness of Alfonso X’s extravagance and the burden of taxes imposed on his people.

A wise king should be literate and familiar with the saberes or fields of knowledge useful for the business of kingship. That would allow him to form his own judgments and not be overly dependent on any of his counselors. By studying scripture he would deepen his understanding of the faith, while knowledge of other subjects would help him govern his people. Aside from the wisdom to be gained from books, he should familiarize himself with other men, studying their lineage, habits, and deeds in order to identify those on whom he could rely and those of whom he should be wary. Developing skill in the use of arms, he ought also to find diversion in hunting, a pleasant form of recreation illustrated in CSM 142. He should also spend time listening to music and song, playing chess and other games, but never gambling, and reading histories and romances and other books that give pleasure (SP 2, 5, 16–21).

The King’s Court and Household

In order to execute his duties, the king required the assistance of the officials constituting his court and household. In the twelfth century the term curia regis, referring to his ordinary entourage, came into general use,³⁵ but gave way in the thirteenth century to corte del rey. According to the royal jurists, the sword of justice was kept there to cut away evil. Although casa del rey was often used interchangeably with corte del rey, in time the former referred to the domestic services of the royal household, while the latter emphasized the public functions of administration and justice. Wherever the king might be was also his palace, so-called because one could speak openly and truthfully there. By whatever name it was called, the royal court was the chief instrument whereby Alfonso X exercised his authority.36

Surrounded by his counselors, the king gave audience to men who came to honor him, plead for justice, seek favors, discuss their concerns, and offer advice or their services. At the royal court, men and women and the children of magnates learned the habits of cortesía (courtesy), namely, kindness, good manners, and proper language. Shunning secrecy, deceit, mockery, vilification, and loud argument, they were rightly described as corteses (courteous) (SP 2, 9, 27, 29–30).

As there was no capital city, in order to be effective, the king, accompanied by his court, traveled throughout his realm, spending weeks, months, or even years in places requiring attention. Thus, in 1252–53 he resided at Seville, organizing his government and repopulating the city and its district. He was there again in 1261–63 tending to the Mudéjar revolt and the African crusade. In 1270–71 he lived at Murcia settling that recently rebellious region. The closing years of his reign were spent mainly at Seville because of the Marinid threat.³⁷ As an expression of honor and respect, everyone was expected to kiss his hand upon his arrival or departure (SP 4, 25, 5). The besamanos became a commonplace of royal ceremonies throughout the centuries.

As Aristotle counseled Alexander,³⁸ officials should serve the king as their lord and defend the kingdom as they would his body. They should not be overly poor, lest they be susceptible to bribery, nor powerful nobles, scornful of daily service and likely to do harm and demean the king. Rather, they should be men of middle rank, of decent origin, with some property, and endowed with intelligence, good sense, and unswerving loyalty. Measured in conduct, unmoved by feelings of love, hate, or envy, impervious to bribes, they should always strive to be of one will with him. As a superior man, according to Seneca, would always seek counsel before acting, the king ought to appoint as counselors men whom he loved and trusted.³⁹ Intelligent, prudent, and discreet men of good judgment, who would never reveal his secrets, they should know how to manage important affairs. Nothing worse could befall the king than to have an enemy as his counselor (Sir 37:7–10). Despite the advice attributed to Aristotle, magnates appointed to the highest offices were the king’s most prominent counselors (SP 2, 9, 1–2, 5–6).

All royal officials had to take an oath to the king. Kneeling before him with their hands in his, they swore to protect his life, to serve his honor and advantage, to give him loyal counsel, to guard his secrets, to protect whatever property they held of him or that pertained to his dominion, to obey his commands, to fulfill the duties of their office well and loyally, and never to do anything contrary to this oath. The king then invested each man with the symbol of his office, but the text does not describe those symbols (SP 2, 9, 26).

Visitors were assured of secure access to the royal court, and also during their journey to and from the court. Whoever killed or wounded another in the king’s presence, or in the town where he resided, or within three miles thereof, would be executed as a traitor (E 2, 14, 1–9; SP 2, 16, 1–4). Just prior to the Cortes of Burgos in 1272, the nobles alleged their fear of entering the city unless the king granted them a truce and allowed them to bear arms. Although he asserted that everyone was safe in his court and had no need of arms there, he agreed to meet them outside the walls.40

The king’s court included both clerics and laymen, the former charged with his spiritual welfare and the latter with temporal affairs. The chief chaplain, for example, was the king’s spiritual advisor, who celebrated mass and the liturgical hours, heard his confession, and expounded the scriptures to him (E 2, 12, 1, 5; SP 2, 9, 3). Juan Martínez, capellán mayor, witnessed the king’s will in 1283.⁴¹

The principal place of honor, according to ancient custom, belonged to the alférez (ar. al-faris), a noble of high rank who carried the royal standard in the king’s presence, led troops into battle in his absence, and bore the sword of justice in his court. As the king’s advocate, he demanded reparation from those who diminished royal sovereignty, brought great men to justice, defended those accused falsely, and appointed advocates for noble widows and orphans. For many years the king’s brother Manuel held this post, but after his defection in 1282, the king appointed his youngest son Juan as alférez. Second in rank was the mayordomo mayor who supervised the entire household, especially the financial accounts (E 2, 13, 1–2; SP 2, 9, 16–17). The king named Fernando de la Cerda to this position after his birth, but a subordinate carried out its functions. After Fernando’s death in 1275, Infante Manuel briefly held the office. The names of the alférez and mayordomo mayor customarily were included in the circumference of the wheel depicted at the bottom of royal privileges.⁴²

Other officials of state, whose activities will be discussed in later chapters, included alcaldes or judges, the adelantado mayor del rey supervising the administration of justice, and the alguacil or justicia mayor who maintained security and enforced their judgments. Territorial administration was the responsibility of the adelantados mayores and merinos mayores. The almirante or admiral commanded the fleet (E 2, 13, 3–7; SP 2, 9, 18–24). The almojarife (ar. al-mushrif) directed an army of tax collectors who had to render accounts annually (SP 2, 9, 25). The post was often filled by Jews, such as Solomon ibn Zadok (Don Çulema) and Meir ibn Shoshan. The former’s son Isaac ibn Zadok (Zag de la Maleha) and the latter’s sons Isaac and Joseph served as tax farmers.

As everyone benefited when the king was in good health, the physicians who cared for his physical well-being and tended to him when ill had a significant responsibility (E 2, 12, 4; SP 2, 9, 10). After suffering a kick in the head by a horse at Burgos in 1269, Alfonso’s health began to deteriorate as reports of his illnesses at Ávila (1273), Requena (1273), Beaucaire (1275), Vitoria (1276), and Seville (1281) suggest. Modern examination of his remains revealed that he developed a cancerous growth below his eyes, perhaps the cause of his increasingly irascible behavior that ultimately led to his deposition in 1282. In his last days he was attended by his personal physician, Master Nicolás.43

The repostero mayor or butler oversaw service at the royal table,⁴⁴ while the despensero mayor or dispenser purchased victuals and other necessities The camarero mayor or chamberlain guarded the king’s bedchamber, clothing, and other belongings. The portero mayor or chief herald supervised a group of porteros, heralds or ushers who admitted people to the king’s presence, and otherwise carried out his orders.⁴⁵ The posadero mayor or lodging master arranged lodgings for the king and his company when they traveled (SP 2, 9, 11–15). During the Cortes he requisitioned rooms from local people who often found these visitors to be unwelcome guests. Nevertheless, the king assured the townspeople that they would not have to lodge anyone without their consent. Lodgers were expected to pay rent and were forbidden to steal anything from householders.⁴⁶ Mandaderos, perhaps best described as ambassadors, were men capable of articulating the king’s wishes and keeping his secrets. Pseudo-Aristotle called them the king’s eyes and ears (SP 2, 9, 21).⁴⁷

The mesnada del rey or household cavalry guarded the king’s person by day and night (E 2, 13, 5–6; SP 2, 9, 9). The household also included chamberlains and chambermaids, cupbearers, cooks, and other kitchen personnel. An indeterminate number known collectively as the criazón del rey were young people reared in the court and assigned to such tasks as archers, falconers, cellarers, or guardians of royal granaries. At any given time, the court probably included more than a hundred people. Penalties for attacking the king’s officials varied depending upon the person assailed and the status of the attacker. A fine of five hundred maravedís was common, but it could be one thousand to two thousand payable to the king and an equal amount to the injured person. The perpetrator might also be deprived of his estates, banished, or executed (E 2, 13, 8–9, 12–13).

Although Alfonso X was a prodigal king, he attempted to restrain extravagance at court and curb the growing consumer mentality and taste for luxury. As it was important that he maintain a dignified appearance and dress appropriately for his rank, the Cortes of Valladolid in 1258 (art. 14) reserved to the king (and to a bridegroom) the right to wear garments of scarlet, cendal (a finely woven cloth), or silk. Eliminating excessive display, the Cortes also limited the types of clothing worn by courtiers and nobles. Royal scribes, cross-bowmen, falconers, and porters (with the exception of the chief official of each group) were forbidden to wear white garments, scarlet breeches, gilded shoes or spurs, hats with brass markings, saddles adorned with gold or silver, and silken garments. Household clerics had to wear the full tonsure and avoid the use of bright colors, as well as open sleeves and cord shoes. They should wear dark breeches and use plain saddles and bridles, though some exceptions were made for clerical procurators and cathedral canons (arts. 4–5).

Bernard Reilly remarked that the chancery was “the one undoubted institution of government… the oldest institution of royal, central government, after the office of king itself.”48 The chancery served as an essential means of communicating royal directives to the entire realm. By the thirteenth century a professional staff, mostly clerics, developed procedures for composing, issuing, and recording royal documents.⁴⁹ As the majority of his people did not understand Latin, the language employed for centuries for serious discourse, Alfonso X opted to use Castilian for chancery documents and law codes, and also for many of the literary works carried out under his aegis. Nevertheless, his imperial chancery, headed by a protonotarius sacri imperii, issued Latin documents under its own seal.⁵⁰

Under Fernando III the archbishop of Toledo held the title of chanciller mayor de Castilla and the archbishop of Compostela that of chanciller mayor de León, but those were honorific positions. The Alfonsine Codes do not associate the office of chancellor with the archbishops, though royal charters do refer to the archbishop of Toledo by that title. Only once was the archbishop of Compostela identified as chancellor. Although the Espéculo spoke about chancellors in the plural form, the Partidas mentioned only a single chancellor who approved the issuance of all charters and privileges. A member of the consejo del rey or royal council, he ought to enjoy the king’s confidence, keep his secrets, and protect him against shame or injury. Able to read and write Latin and Romance, he ought to be a person of good lineage, common sense, good memory, and good habits (E 2, 12, 2; SP 2, 9, 4).

The Alfonsine Codes sketched an ideal chancellor, but in reality the daily business of the chancery was directed by three notarios mayores or chief notaries, one each for Castile, León, and Andalucía (this last an innovation of Alfonso X). Both clerics and laymen, they were expected to be prudent, intelligent, and reasonably prosperous, so they would not be tempted by bribes. Those having the title of magister were university graduates (E 2, 12, 3; SP 2, 9, 7). Faithful service in this capacity was often rewarded by ecclesiastical preferment. For example, Master Fernando, notario mayor de Castilla, was named bishop of Palencia in 1256, and Suero Pérez, bishop of Zamora, served as notario mayor de León. Master Juan Alfonso, archdeacon of Santiago and notary for León, was later named bishop of Palencia. Master Gonzalo García de Gudiel, notary for Castile, later became bishop of Cuenca, then of Burgos, and finally archbishop of Toledo.

After taking notes for a document, the notary directed the process of drafting, sealing, and registering royal charters. Scribes (escribanos) who composed the texts were expected to be intelligent men of good reputation who could write neatly and legibly (E 2, 2, 6).51 They had to swear to draw up charters loyally and without delay and to preserve the king’s secrets and not be swayed by fear or favor to do otherwise. A scribe who violated that oath could be executed for treason. As evidence of his work, he recorded his name at the foot of the document; if another did so at his request, that had to be noted (E 4, 12, 2; SP 2, 9, 8). If a document was incorrectly drafted, the notary would destroy it and demand a new one. Registrars (registradores) recorded the document in registers so that if the original was lost, defaced, or misunderstood, or if a false charter were offered, the register copy could be presented (E 4, 12, 7).⁵² Custodians of the royal seals (seelladores) used to authenticate chancery documents had to swear that they would seal only those charters authorized by the king, the chancellor, the notary, or the judge, and that they would not reveal any secrets. Nor would they seal an unregistered charter; if a charter did not conform to chancery practice, they would alert the notaries (E 4, 13, 1–4). These regulations remained in effect for many years and were confirmed by later monarchs in the Cortes.

The most solemn document was the privilegio rodado written on parchment and so called because of the rueda or wheel at the foot of the text bearing the names of the king, the alférez, and the mayordomo. Divided into quarters by a cross, and often brightly colored, the wheel sometimes displayed castles and lions symbolic of Castile and León.⁵³ Following the subscription of the king and the members of his family, and the names of royal vassals, the bishops, magnates, and principal officials were listed in parallel columns to the right and left of the wheel. As these lists were stereotyped, one cannot say that each confirmant was physically present when the document was drafted. The date might also record a notable event, such as the marriage of Prince Edward to the king’s sister Leonor in 1254.54 Privileges were used for the appointment of royal officials; the concession of tax exemptions, fueros, pardons, leases, and contracts; the definition of boundaries; the rendering of accounts; the secure passage of animals; and permission to circulate papal and episcopal petitions.

Most royal business was recorded in charters (cartas). Whereas privileges should be written on parchment, paper was used for charters (SP 3, 18, 5).⁵⁵ Less elaborate than the privilegios rodados, charters dispensed with the wheel and the list of confirmants and were used for many purposes: the grant of estates; the legitimation of children; the recording of agreements; the authorization of the export of horses and other cosas vedadas; orders for arrests, the collection of taxes, or building castles; recommendations; the conduct of inquests; and the grant of safe conduct to royal envoys (E 4, 6, 1–25; SP 3, 18, pr., 1–25). The leaden seal appended to privileges and charters with a silken cord was visible evidence of their authenticity. A wax seal was used on most charters. The seal might display a castle and a lion on the obverse and reverse or a mounted king on the obverse and castles and lions quartered on the reverse.⁵⁶ In addition to their regular salary, the scribe and the custodian of the seal received one maravedí each for every privilege and half a maravedí for every charter. There are numerous examples of how different types of documents should be drafted (E 4, 12, 12–45; SP 3, 18, 4–121).

As noted in chapter 2, it is likely that chancery officials, at Palencia in May–June 1255, compiled a book recording fees to be charged for documents. According to the Ordinance of Zamora in 1274 (art. 40), the royal scribes proposed that chancery fees should be no more than those established in that book. Quite possibly, material from the Espéculo and the putative book of fees and chancery practice was incorporated into those sections of the Partidas (3, 18–20) dealing with documents, notaries, registration, and sealing.

As the royal court was an itinerant body and there was no permanent depository for its records, the perils of travel and nature inevitably took their toll, and the royal registers and other archival materials were lost. Consequently, the original privileges and charters must be sought in cathedral, monastic, noble, and municipal archives.

God, King, People, and Country

Charged by God to love and defend his people and to uphold justice and law, the king, as their head and loving father, should share their sorrows, chastise them with kindness, and be merciful to them. Elaborating on the Pseudo-Aristotle’s comparison of the kingdom to a garden, the royal jurists described the people as trees, the king as the owner, his officials as workmen, magnates and knights as watchmen, laws and customs as an encircling palisade, and judges as protective walls and hedges. Just as water facilitates growth, so the king should reward everyone according to his merits, but he should also wield the sword of justice to purge wrongdoers.57 A good king would love, honor, and protect the estates of the realm: the clergy who preached the faith; magnates and knights who ennobled his court and defended the realm; masters of the sciences whose counsel pointed to the straight path; townspeople, the root and treasure of the kingdom; merchants who imported needed products; and craftsmen without whose labor no one could live. If he did so, prosperity would abound and he would be loved, praised, and feared. If not, he would have much to suffer both in this world and the next (SP 2, 10, 1–3). Before the end of his reign, Alfonso X would learn the truth of that statement.

The king was also bound to love and protect his country. The measures that Alfonso proposed to populate and cultivate it so that it would produce the essentials of life and contribute to the prosperity of his people will be discussed in chapter 12.

Paralleling the king’s commitments were the people’s obligations to love God, king, and country.⁵⁸ Endowed by God with understanding beyond all other creatures, the people who have faith and hope in God and love and fear God will be happy in this life and rewarded with the joys of paradise (SP 2, 12, 1–9). They must also love, honor, obey, and fear the king who receives his name from God and stands in God’s place. Alluding to the divine command “do not touch my anointed” (Ps 105:15), the royal jurists condemned as a traitor anyone who assaulted or killed the king. Regicides and their families should be forever despised, their property confiscated, their houses torn down, and their fields uprooted. The kingdom whose king was murdered would lose its good name. No one should lie to him, defame him, intentionally mislead him, importune him for something he did not merit, or cause him to expend time and money in vain pursuits (E 2, 1, 6–10; SP 2, 13, 1–11).

Expressing their love for him by offering wise counsel, the people should also fear him, in accordance with the admonition: “fear God, honor the king” (1 Pt 2:17). As God conferred temporal authority upon him, anyone who disobeyed him contravened God’s ordinance and would suffer perdition (Rom 13:1–7). The people should willingly obey him, answer his summons, and render military service, financial accounts, and justice. Always speaking truthfully and courteously to him, they ought to correct him quietly and discreetly if he were in error. While standing, sitting, or riding, they should always show him proper deference. No one should lie on his bed or jump over it when he was in it (E 2, 2, 1–6; SP 2, 13, 12–18). The people also honored him by honoring the queen, his family, and officials (E 2, 3–5, 12–16; SP 2, 14–16). The people’s duty to protect royal estates, maintain his castles, and shield him against his enemies will be discussed in a later chapter (E 2, 6–11; SP 2, 17–19).

The people ought also to improve their native land by using its resources wisely. Following the biblical injunction to increase and multiply (Gen 1:28), they were encouraged to marry early, beget offspring, and teach them to love their country. Cultivating the land so that it abounds with all necessities, they should maintain their property in good order. Idlers who refused to work should be banished and, if healthy, denied alms. Craftsmen were exhorted to be honest, to avoid the use of false materials, and to complete their work promptly. Recommending a program of public works, the royal jurists urged people to break up rocks, cut tunnels through mountains, level highlands, and fill in lowlands. In order to defend their country, they should build castles, organize military forces, and provide funds for the expenses of war (SP 2, 20, 1–8).

Treason and Tyranny

The bond between king and people might by broken when they engaged in treason or when he ruled tyrannically. Treason (crimen laesae maiestatis; crimen perduellionis)59 was a crime against the king’s person, but also against God, the people, and the realm. The list of treasonable crimes was long: attempting to kill the king, or deprive him of his honor and dignity; conspiring to make someone else king; aiding his enemies; fomenting rebellion; deterring another ruler (the emir of Granada) from becoming his vassal and paying tribute; abandoning him in battle; revealing his plans to his enemies; killing his officials or hostages; violating royal sureties; assisting a traitor to escape; refusing to yield an office to someone else appointed by the king; and mutilating his charters and images or counterfeiting his coinage or seals. These acts were punishable by confiscation, exile, and death (E 2, 1, 6–8; 3, 5, 9, 12; FR 1, 2, 1–2; 1, 4, 1; 3, 12, 5; 4, 25, 26–27; SP 2, 13, 6, 9–25; 2, 18, 3, 5; 2, 19, 6–7; 2, 28, 2; 7, 2, 1).⁶⁰

A traitor’s children, forever branded as infamous, could not receive knighthood, hold office, or receive a bequest. His daughters, however, could inherit a quarter of their mother’s estate, because women were not as likely to commit treason. The king might pardon a man who planned to commit treason but repented, and even reward him if he identified other traitors. The king would not punish a man who defamed him while intoxicated or out of his mind, but if he was lucid and had a legitimate grievance, he might attend to it (SP 7, 2, 2–6; FR 4, 4, 21).

The vehemence pervading the discussion of threats to the king reveals an intensity of feeling emanating from Alfonso X himself. Soon after his accession, he had to contend with the hostility of his alférez Diego López de Haro, and of his brother Enrique, but there is no evidence that they attempted to assassinate him. His brother Fadrique, given the king’s poor health and Sancho’s young age, probably committed treason by making a bid for power. In March 1277 the king, “on account of certain things that he knew about them,” abruptly ordered the arrest and execution of Fadrique and his sonin-law Simón Ruiz de los Cameros. Without mentioning either man, CSM 235 related that some magnates, including the king’s “closest relatives,” conspired to overthrow him and partition the kingdom. Although Fadrique may have thought to make himself king, that would be contrary to custom and the law of the Partidas. It seems more probable, as Manuel González Jiménez suggested, that he intended to declare himself regent for the king whose recurrent illnesses indicated that he was no longer capable of carrying out his duties. Perhaps he would yield the regency when Sancho became eighteen and could govern on his own, but he probably would not have withdrawn graciously.61 By executing Fadrique and Simón, Alfonso X opened himself to the charge, repeated in his own time and later, that he denied them due process of law. His blatant violation of that fundamental royal duty was a sign of his increasing irascibility that would lead Sancho to deprive him of royal authority five years later.

After describing treasonous activities by the nobility in past centuries, Juan Gil de Zamora related that at Segovia at some unspecified date “treacherous men fired three arrows at King Alfonso,” but he escaped unharmed.⁶² The king was in Segovia on several occasions, but I suspect that nobles, outraged by the execution of Fadrique and Simón and disgruntled by the king’s failure to declare Alfonso de la Cerda as his heir in the Cortes of Segovia in 1278, attempted the assassination in that year. Juan Gil lamented that “miserable Spain is tormented by unaccustomed oppressions,” and “today, on account of our sins, princes do not ask vassals for what is due, but for what is undue, not for what is just and customary, but for what is unjust and not customary.” By contrast, he recalled the Roman legal maxim Digna vox admonishing the king to observe the law. His remarks clearly point to contemporary protests against Alfonso X’s legal innovations and his imposition of extraordinary taxation. In the expectation that his student would amend abuses, Juan Gil declared that the name Sancho derived from the Latin sancio or sanction. Adding that “lex est sancio iustiniana” (law is Justinian’s sanction), he stressed Sancho’s obligation to do justice by giving everyone his due.63

A few years later, Sancho, in his father’s mind, committed the gravest of treasons. During the Cortes of Seville in 1281, the king announced his intention to allot the kingdom of Jaén to his grandson Alfonso de la Cerda to hold in vassalage of Castile. When Sancho denounced that idea, his father threatened to disinherit him. In April 1282, Sancho, supported by Queen Violante, his younger brothers, and his uncle Manuel, assembled the estates at Valladolid and stripped his father of royal authority, leaving him only with the royal title.⁶⁴

In November 1282, the king, in the form of a judicial sentence, bitterly condemned Sancho.⁶⁵ Seated in the tribunal in the palace of Seville, he accused Sancho of “treasonably and falsely” conspiring against him, causing him “grave and multiple injuries,” concluding a friendship pact with the emir of Granada, and seizing the tribute owed by the emir. Moreover, Sancho charged his father with violating the fueros, liberties, and good customs of his people and of impoverishing them with his financial demands. Surely worst of all, Sancho said many “unworthy” things about him, namely, that he was “demented and a leper, false, and a perjurer… who killed men without cause, as he killed don Fadrique and Simón.” In his fury, the king accused Sancho of seizing castles and cities, ousting royal judges and other officials, arresting his familiars and confiscating their property, intercepting his correspondence and his envoys, and appropriating his treasure. Despite that, the king, moved by “paternal love,” and hoping to dissuade Sancho from his erroneous path, invited him to meet him at Toledo or Villarreal, “to order the good estate of the realm.” With Sancho’s counsel, and that of the prelates, barons, and good men of the cities, he promised to amend all outstanding grievances and to “arrange everything for the good of the state, peace, and tranquility.”

Nevertheless, Sancho, “unable to hide his malevolence toward us, and blinded by the fire of ambition,” summoned prelates, barons, knights, and citizens to Valladolid to a curia general—“if one can call it a curia.” By bribery and threats Sancho induced them to “rebel against us and our authority.” “Without citing us, advising us, hearing us, or convicting us, he caused us to be condemned, not by a judge, but by enemy conspirators.” He was deprived of the administration of justice, the custody of fortresses, and the revenues of the realm, and was not to be received in any city, town, or castle. Furthermore, Sancho and his accomplices, by striving to have Sancho named king, violently usurped the honor and dominion that he did not deserve, and dis-inherited the king. As the “culmination of all those evils,” Sancho threatened the king’s life and encouraged the people of Andalucía to seize his person. In the hope of capturing the king, he launched an attack on Seville, and thus revealed himself as a parricide. However, God thwarted his “cruel intent” by encouraging the resistance of the people, and, “what is most admirable, the opportune help of the enemies of our faith,” the Moors of Granada, or Marinids of Morocco. As a final insult, Sancho and his men shot arrows against the royal standard.

Without fear of God and entirely forgetting the reverence owed to his father, Sancho “impiously” inflicted grave injuries on him. Therefore, Alfonso X cursed his son, “as worthy of a father’s malediction, as God’s reprobate, and as worthy of being vituperated by all men. May he live henceforth as a victim of this divine and human curse.” The king disinherited him as disobedient, contumacious, and ungrateful, “more so than the most ungrateful and degenerate son.” Divested of whatever right he may have had as the king’s heir, neither Sancho nor any of his descendants would ever succeed to the kingdom. This irrevocable sentence was sealed with the royal seal in the presence of witnesses, including bishops, nobles, and officials, and many clergy, soldiers, citizens, and an immense multitude of people.66 That harsh tirade seemed to preclude any peaceful resolution of this dispute. A year later, when the king drew up his last will, he repeated his denunciation of Sancho as a traitor who cruelly dishonored him and even plotted his death. Calling down the malediction of God, the Virgin Mary, and the whole celestial court, he defamed Sancho as a traitor and again disinherited him.⁶⁷

Nevertheless, just as Alfonso X could castigate his son as a traitor, Sancho could assail him as a tyrant. When a king abused his power, his people had to consider what recourse they had. In the early Middle Ages kings were often assassinated, and the assassin sometimes gained the throne. The nobles claimed a right of resistance, which usually took the form of rebellion as they attempted to compel the king to right perceived wrongs. One might also seek redress in the courts or petition the king in the Cortes. From the twelfth century onward scholars discussed whether it was licit to depose or even kill a king. Interpreting the lex regia, the legists argued that as the Roman people conferred their authority on the emperor, they might also reclaim it by deposing a tyrannical ruler and choosing another. Deposition, however, was an extreme measure that threatened the established order. Killing another person was morally reprehensible, but to kill a king, God’s anointed, God’s vicar ruling by God’s grace, was construed as an offense against God. Initially, John of Salisbury (d. 1180) argued that a tyrant was a public enemy who might be killed, but ultimately he decided that it was best to leave him to divine punishment.⁶⁸ In general, the latter became the preferred doctrine. In contrast to a true king, a tyrant gained power by force, deceit, or treason and, rather than serve the common good, used that power for his own benefit often to the detriment of the realm. Tyrants maintained themselves by sowing discord among the people, keeping them ignorant and in fear and in poverty. Lacking courage, unity, and the means, the people could not oppose tyrants who plundered the powerful, killed the wise, and prohibited confraternities and assemblies. That reference recalls Fernando III’s prohibition in the Cortes of Seville in 1250 of evil confraternities, an injunction repeated by Alfonso X in the Cortes of Seville in 1252 and again in 1258, 1261, and 1268.69 Tyrants also employed domestic spies and relied on the counsel of foreigners. Citing Aristotle’s Politics (bk. 4, chaps. 10–11), Alfonso X commented that a king who legitimately gained power might abuse it, so that his lawful sovereignty would become unlawful. In that case the people could declare him to be a tyrant (SP 2, 1, 10). However, he left unanswered the question whether the people could overthrow a tyrant or execute him. This discussion of tyranny seems abstract and was probably included in the text for the sake of completeness. In 1282, however, when Sancho broke with his father, the issue of tyranny became very real.

In his condemnation of Sancho in November 1282 the king mentioned several charges that might be construed as signs of tyranny. In addition to trampling on his people’s fueros and customs, he was accused of ruining them by frequent taxation, and of executing Fadrique and Simón without cause. Those accusations, originally attributed to Sancho and his supporters, were repeated in the Assembly of Valladolid in May. The hermandad of Leonese bishops and monasteries implied that the king had threatened them.⁷⁰ The town of Chinchilla urged Sancho to ask his father to maintain their good fueros and customs and to cancel the copper money in circulation.⁷¹ In July, the Leonese hermandad, to which the Castilians adhered, denounced the king for “many acts contrary to law, many injuries, acts of coercion, killings, imprisonments, and excessive taxes, without being heard, and dishonorable acts, and many other things contrary to God, contrary to justice, and contrary to law and to the great harm of all the realms.” Complaining that “we were deprived of law and maltreated… such that we could not endure it,” they turned to Sancho to uphold their fueros, customs, and liberties.⁷²

Treason and tyranny, then, proved to be opposite sides of the same coin. Although some attempt at reconciliation was made, father and son never met again. Though the king pardoned Sancho and asked Pope Martin IV to do so, Sancho may never have learned that.⁷³ His father’s curse weighed heavily upon him. Many years later he remarked that he was dying not so much because of illness, but because of “the curse that my father gave me for the many reasons that I deserved it.”74

The Idea of the State

Throughout the Alfonsine Codes, but especially in the Partidas, there are frequent references to the kingdom, not merely as a geographical area, but also as an entity distinct from both king and people.⁷⁵ There one can detect the emerging concept of the state, established, not on feudal ties, but on the corporate unity of king and people. Many early Christians believed that the state, with its coercive power, arose because of the sinful behavior of men. Rather than appeal to sacred scripture, however, royal theorists found much more congenial Aristotle’s argument that the idea of the state was inherent in human nature, and thus essentially good.⁷⁶ Given that independent origin, the state was freed from any temporal subordination to the spiritual power.⁷⁷ Civil society arose naturally from birth or long residence in the kingdom, and helped to forge family connections and a loving relationship among the people (SP 2, 18, 32; 4, 24, 1–5). The king was the señor natural or natural lord of the people, who were naturales or natives of the kingdom and his natural vassals. That natural bond (naturaleza) superseded the feudal link between lord and vassal (E 2, 1, 9; 2, 6, 1; 2, 8, 1; PPBM pr., 1, 1, 6).⁷⁸

The Roman term for the state was res publica, the public business. An abstract idea, it was also a corporate entity, a juridical person, with its own reason for being and its own public law. Although Juan Gil de Zamora used that word,⁷⁹ the royal jurists preferred regno, tierra, and señorío, often in the same passage with essentially the same meaning. Those terms not only identified the territory ruled by the king, but also expressed that abstraction, the state.⁸⁰ A kingdom (regno) is a country (tierra) that has a king as lord (señor) (SP 2, 19, 3). In his denunciation of Sancho in 1282, Alfonso X’s reference to revenues that “belong to the kingdom” indicated his awareness of the separate identity of the state.⁸¹ The classification of certain actions as treasonable offenses against both the king and the kingdom made the same point. On the other hand, the Libro de los cien capítulos, probably written toward the end of his reign, commented that the king and the kingdom were two persons, but one thing.⁸² In contemporary usage tierra meant a benefice or fief, but also the kingdom. Señorío, meaning lordship, had feudal connotations, but it also referred to royal sovereignty. The term corona, in the sense of an invisible crown linking king and kingdom, but distinct from both, does not seem to be used in Alfonsine texts, but it was known to his collaborators. Sancho IV, for example, in 1285 cited a village belonging to the corona real. Nuño González de Lara, according to the early fourteenth-century Chronicle of Alfonso X, declared that he would never advise the king to release Portugal from the tribute owed to “the crown of your kingdoms.”83 Juan Gil de Zamora spoke of “the diadem of the three kingdoms” of Castile, León, and Galicia.⁸⁴

The preferred description of the state and its component elements, king, kingdom, and people, was the body politic, which John of Salisbury described in the twelfth century.⁸⁵ Although Alfonso X did not use the word cuerpo político or body politic, he compared himself and his people to the human body (E 2, 6, 2; SP 2, 1, 5; 2, 10, 2).⁸⁶ The very concept of the body implies unity, an idea accentuated by the statement that the king is the one “through whom all the men of the realm receive the gift of God in being one thing” (E 2, 6, 1; SP 2, 1, 5; 2, 15, 5). Just as St. Paul stressed the interdependence of the diverse members of Christ’s body, the church (1 Cor 1:12), so too Alfonso X affirmed the unity of the body politic, whose members depended on one another to perform functions essential to the well-being of the whole. As the soul gives life to the human body and the head directs its activities, so the king commands the body politic, unifying it under his leadership. By implication, disobedience would cause disorders throughout the body. An attack on the king, for example, was “against the kingdom because it removes from them that head that God gave them and the life whereby they live as one” (E 2, 1, 6).

As unity was a fundamental characteristic of the body politic, the king should not diminish it, especially by partition or alienation. In 1255 when Alfonso X required his people to acknowledge his daughter Berenguela as his heir, he stated that a private estate might be divided among heirs, but that succession to a kingdom was indivisible and entire. Quoting Lucan’s comment that power ought not to be shared, he stressed that division would bring about the desolation foretold in the Gospel (Mk 3:25).⁸⁷ He also commented that “anciently they made a fuero and a statute in Spain that the señorío del regno should not be divided or alienated” (E 5, 11, 33; SP 2, 15, 5). The Estoria de Espanna remarked: “In ancient times the Goths agreed among themselves that the empire of Spain should never be divided, but that all of it should always be under one lord.”⁸⁸ Ironically, in his last years, Alfonso X violated that principle when he attempted to partition his dominions among his contending heirs. In opposition, Sancho IV asserted that a king should not “diminish or partition his kingdom among his sons after his death, nor is it appropriate for him to alienate or to diminish the goods of his kingdom. The kingdom that is partitioned and diminished will be desolated to the root, as Jesus Christ said in the Gospel.” Without mentioning his father, he reminded his own son to “observe how much evil occurred and how much bad fortune befell those kings who divided their realms among their sons, and, after the death [of those kings], the discord, wars, killings, and evils that came upon them on account of that partition.”89

Conservation of the good estate of a unified kingdom was the king’s essential responsibility. That idea was expressed by the words utilitas or necessitas regni—the utility or necessity of the kingdom. Juan Gil commented, for example, that the Roman consuls ruled “for the utility of the republic.”⁹⁰ In 1282 Alfonso X spoke of his desire to achieve peace with Granada that would “redound to the service of God, the utility of the kingdom, and our honor.”⁹¹ In that year, the bishops and abbots, assembled for “the common utility and good estate” of the church and the kingdoms of León and Castile, prayed that Sancho would rule “for the utility of his realm.”⁹²

In order to satisfy the needs of the realm, the king had to assess its state. During the Cortes of Seville in 1250, Fernando III declared his desire to regulate the “buen paramiento de la tierra” (good condition of the realm).⁹³ In 1260 Alfonso X spoke of putting “in good estate the business of our kingdoms” and expressed the hope that the “realm would return to laws and good estate.”⁹⁴ Appealing to the pope in 1277 to release the king from his oath not to alter the coinage, the bishops asserted that it was for “the good estate of the realm.” The hermandad of 1282 was anxious that “the realm would be pacified and would return to the good estate in which it was accustomed.”⁹⁵ In 1282 the king asked Sancho to meet him so they might “order the good estate of the realm.”⁹⁶

In trying to maintain the kingdom in good estate, Alfonso X sought to achieve the common good.⁹⁷ In 1282 he said that he hoped that the alliance between France and Castile would serve “the common good… not only of our dominion, but of the whole of Christendom.”⁹⁸ He made the laws “for the service of God and the common good” (PPBM pr.; 1, 1, 1; 1, 1, 7; 1, 2, 9; 1, 6, 85; E 1, 1, 7; 3, 7, 8).⁹⁹ In 1277 the bishops emphasized that the alteration of the coinage would “be to the service of God and to the benefit of the king and of his kingdom.”¹⁰⁰ Conversely, certain actions might be injurious to the kingdom (E 1, 1, 6; 2, 8, 1; 2, 16, 5). The Espéculo (5, 11, 33) stipulated that “if the king should swear anything that might injure or diminish the realm, he is not bound to observe that oath.” Just as he might have enemies, so also might the kingdom, though usually they were the same people (E 2, 6, 2). Thus, in November 1282 Alfonso X condemned “a conspiracy against us and against our dominion” that was “a grave prejudice to our realms.”¹⁰¹ What was injurious to the realm might also be treasonable to the king and the kingdom (E 2, 1, 6; 5, 5, 7; FR 3, 12, 5; PPBM 1, 9, 57).

In asserting his obligation to preserve the good estate of the realm and the people’s duty to love their country, the king and his scholars were attempting to inculcate a spirit of patriotism. Love of country, arising from the natural bond created between the land and the people, demanded that everyone attempt to cultivate it, exploit its pasturage, mines, and other natural resources, and develop it in good order so that “men will have a greater desire to live and to dwell in it” (SP 2, 11, 1–3; 2, 12, pr.; 2, 20, 1–8).102

El Buen Estado de la Tierra

As a we have seen, both the Espéculo and the Second Partida, in a more elaborate form, emphasized that the king, holding God’s place on earth, was obliged to do justice to his people and to show them mercy. His authority was described as señorío, a word literally meaning lordship or dominion, but better interpreted as sovereignty, an inalienable right or power. In enunciating the two swords theory, the royal jurists distinguished between the spiritual and temporal powers, but as both powers came from God, they insisted that they should be in concord. Nevertheless, they were emphatic in asserting the king’s temporal independence of all other rulers, including the pope and the emperor. Given Alfonso X’s status as Holy Roman Emperor-elect, they were at pains to delineate the terms of imperial authority, but they also declared that the king in his kingdom had the same power as the emperor.

Although the notion of the king as God’s vicar, ruling by God’s grace, seemed to exalt him above all others and free him from any accountability to his people, there were practical limitations on his power. Like his people, he was expected to observe the laws. The Roman maxim Digna vox, which declared that the prince ought to abide by his laws because his authority depended on them, was well known to Alfonso X and his jurists. Furthermore, on multiple occasions he acknowledged his obligation to do justice and guaranteed the principle of due process, namely, that no action could be taken against any man until he had first been judged in a court of law. In addition, the long-standing principle that the king was expected to take counsel before undertaking any action was reaffirmed. The prelates, magnates, knights, and men learned in the law who constituted the royal court not only offered counsel but also implemented his decrees. If circumstances required a broader consultation, the king could summon the Cortes that included representatives of the cities and towns.

In explicating the nature of kingship, the royal jurists developed the concept of the state, an entity constituted by the unity between the king and his people and commonly described as the body politic. Ideally, king and people, motivated by their mutual love for their homeland, worked together to foster “el buen estado de la tierra” (the good estate of the realm). In expressing their patriotism in that way, they made the kingdom a desirable place to live. If the people resisted the king’s authority and engaged in treasonable activity, he was justified in punishing them by execution, confiscation, or exile. On the other hand, if he wielded authority in an arbitrary or tyrannical manner, it was lawful for them to resist. Led by Infante Sancho, the estates of the realm reclaimed the authority entrusted by God to the king, effectively deposed him, and chose another, as Alfonso X learned to his sorrow.